Tell me about the women in your world!

[reanjr]

Tell me about the interesting female NPCs, PCs, or organizations in your world. Are women considered equal, below, or above men in the social hierarchy? What are "kingdoms" ruled by women like?

Mostly egalitarian in societal viewpoint, but not in law. While there are many exceptions by culture and/or legal domain, generally (in monarchic countries):

* An unwed woman is under the control of her father (or mother, if the father is deceased)
* A wed woman is under the control of her husband
* A woman with neither parent nor spouse goes to her eldest brother
* If none of these applies, she is free to own property, run a business, etc.
* Generally a woman can not hold office unless it is an inherited position with no other heirs
* Except in gross cases of abuse, a man can discipline his wife/daughter/sister as he sees fit

Socially, a woman who holds property or power is seen as an equal to her peers. Since many women come from other countries that are more egalitarian, there are many NPCs, PCs, etc. of both gender. Picking out one or another would be difficult. Queendoms are run as Kingdoms, with the throne passing to the eldest son.

 

[DM_Matt]

I tend to have a whole lot of female NPCs with power, but I also include some off the quasi-sexist fantasy staple characters on occasion.

If anytinhg, touhgh, women in traditional roles that are not fantasy archetype ones tend to be more than meets the eye. They in many ways drive the politicla intrigue far more than the men do.

In my game world, human cultures are genrally civilized enough to have gender equality, with that sort of prejudice being reserved for "inferior" species like humanoids. There is one nation basically ruled by women, called Dasheban (basically a rip off of FR's Rasheman), but the society itself is rather equal other than the fact that it is controlled by a group of female spellcasters who derive their power from a genetic ability tha tdoes not manefest in men.

Sample Female NPCs: (My players don't read. This can spoil the whole campagn).



[sblock]
Lady Brianna Wagner: A debutante, politician and owner of a large company that manufactures and sells magical items, she is also the masked and very powerful adveturer who seems to be attacking prominent citizens and officials by night (all of which she has discovered to be evil/corrupt, but no one knows that yet). The name Brianna Wagner quite intentionnally sounds a bit like Bruce Wayne.

Silara Stormlord: The Paladin of Tyranny/Stormlord who is the archenemy of the PC paladin. She is completely heartless and cruel, doesnt talk much, and rides a black unicorn (which flies thanks to her PRC abilities). She basically fits the traditionally-male archetype of the Black Knight/Evil Champion.

Rachel Zarun: Seemingly the dutiful wife to the lord of the city the PC are based in, she turned out to be a demon of pure energy whom the PCs trapped within a sword. Before her fall, she used her position in the court and her unusual powers to assassinate her husband's political rival and frame the rivals wife, and tried to kill another one too, although her accidentally killing a simulacrum instead wound up blowing her cover.

Lady Seaflame, Tarsha, and Kayla: Agents sent from Dasheban to infiltrate the court and keep an eye on Rachel Zarun, who'se identity they were aware of. Seaflame was a powerful witch and prominent politician who gained the PC's trust and convinced them that R.Z. was evil. Her daughters, Kalya and Tarsha, wound up as personal attendants to R.Z. Seaflame was killed by a bounty hunter and Tarsha (a witch) died in the battle that resulted in R.Z. getting trapped in the sword. Kayla is a dervish who now works with the PCs, and is sort of the stereotypical powerful but fragile female warrior who nonetheless fits the bratty little sister archetype, needs saving more often than the guys, and sometimes will flirt to get what she wants.

Queen Alina of Dasheban: Galadriel archetype. Personally the most powerful leader of any nation. However, at a summit, the people gathered there, including the PCs, supported letting her guard the Staff of Creation, an uber-artifact of unknown origion. Eventually, they will discover that this was about as bad as giving Galadriel the One Ring would have been.

Clarissa Zarun: A current main BBEG, although the PCs havent figured it out yet., she is a child vampire lord loosely based on Claudia from Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire. Her father was a mighty necromancer who treated her like a slave and eventually turned her undead in an experiement in his search for the ultimate undead from. Of coruse, since it wasnt a feature he needed, he did nothing to mature her, and she is trapped in the body of a child -- and with certain childlike tendancies -- forever. Out of revenge and a quest for a new body, she altered his final preparations, turning him into a hideous, non=spellcasting monster which she eventually unleashed on a city to be killed.

She was responsable for setting a circle of demons free, joining up with them, and at the same time ensuring that the PCs found the swords meant to recapture them after they had reeked enough havok and taken enough control.

She worships the imprisoned crocodile god Sobek, and she plans to use the captured spirits of the demons to free him, and with the help of Alina, corrupted by the Staff of Creation, plans on taking them from the PCs to achieve that end and to seize control of their minions.

The demons have offered to create her a new body of demonflesh; one which is beautiful and powerful and free of the immaturities that remain in her mind, and thus she is posing as the daughter of the lord of the PCs home city, who is also the lead demon (the PCs suspect this, and have begun to work with Alina against him...they do not, however, suspect Alina). However, she knows that only the Staff of Creation, which only Sobek, its creator, can properly weild, can make her a body that fulfills her expectations, so she plans on betraying her master as well once the time is ripe.

[/sblock]

 

[arscott]

Two things:

I am somewhat concerned by the apparrent obsession over lesbian vampire sorceresses evident in this thread. I find the concept of a lesbian vampire sorceress to be quite terrifying. The lesbians that I know tend to be unique individuals rather than sexy stereotypes, and in conversation they regularly use their impeccably sharp wit to dissuade me from my outdated and paternalistic ideas. The notion that these aquaintances in question (or any ingame analogs) might possess mastery of the arcane arts and the fearsome powers of undeath in addition to the aforementioned sharp wit is best left unconsidered.

On to the other matter. I think that it's worth considering that sexism in both real life and in a campaign might be a two step process. While it may be the case that a culture as a whole (or at least the individuals dictating the beliefs and practicies of said culture) might believe that women (or men) are simply inferior, I suspect that it's not often the case. Instead, I believe that a gender's inferiority or superiority is part of a twofold process:

First, a society associates specific roles or tasks with specific genders. While some of these roles are due to obvious physical traits or characteristics (men as warriors, women as primary caregivers, etc.), others are simply a matter of tradition (men as engineers, women as teachers, etc.).

Second, a society assigns relative importance to each one of those roles. So a warrior is more important than a teacher, an engineer is more important than a caregiver, and so on.

Following this model, the decline in status of women that accompanied the rise of monotheistic religions can is explained by the declining value of women's corresponding gender roles. Judeo-Christian belief put little store in thereforeto important roles such as oracles, witches, and wisewomen, and thus the status of the women fell. Likewise, polygamous (and even strict monogamous) relationships resulted in a decline in status for the mother and a corresponding rise in status for the father.

Similarly, the egalitarian attitudes we see today are a result of both the relaxation of traditional gender roles (as female engineers and stay-at-home dads become increasingly common), and a change in how we value various professions (warriors are accorded less regard, and educators more).

What does this mean for your campaign? Well, for one, it can help explain the egelatarian attidudes that seem to pop up in most campaigns. Maybe Sasha Silversword had a hard time getting the training and equipment necessary to become a Paladin, but nobody who has seen her in action can doubt her ability or devotion to the cause. And nobody cares whether or not she's a girl, because the fact that she's a defender of the divine light is more important.

Also, this has some interesting implications where the creating of matriarchal societies is concerned. You can engineer such societies by reversing traditional gender roles, but not changing their importance (i.e., the Greek Amazons, where the women were warriors and the men were forced to stay at home and do the housework). Or you can have a world where the roles stay the same, but their importance changes (Ancient Assyria, where the sacred prostitutes of the goddess Ishtar were afforded great status and respect), Or some combination of both(Menzobarenzen*, where mothers are accorded more respect than fathers, and the preistesses outrank the warriors and mages).


*Or however the hell you spell it.**

**On second though, the (assumed) misspelling is intentional. It's so I won't infringe on Wizard's IP

 

[fusangite]

Well, I am saying that they Romans DID view "catcherness" as an identity, hence they had words for those who habitually do so, which also had connotatons of effete behavior. I agree that it is different becuase of that distinction betwwen "pitching" and "catching," but not taht it is sometihng of identity.

Now that I tihnk of it, I read some Plutarch last week and I noticed a mention of Sulla dying of some bowel disease aggrevated by association with "Metrobius, impersonator of women," so it seems that those sorts of things (although you could argue that he is only referring to Metrobius' transvestitism rather than his sexual orientation) were looked at as aspects of identity.

Look at your own evidence here for how this phenomenon worked. My original point was that Romans did not have sexual orientation as an available category. Instead what they did was bring to bear their idea of gender. They only objected to homosexual relations insofar as it created problems of gender identity. What Romans found objectionable was not homosexuality, per se, it was men behaving in a way that was defined as female.

Thus, even though Roman society did indeed discriminate against certain forms of homosexual behaviour, it could not be seen as homophobic. Romans were offended by "catching" men not because they saw them as an identity in terms of homosexual relations; they were offended because these men defied gender categorization systems and placed themselves in a liminal region between male and female gender identities.

While you could make the case that these men were part of a small, stigmatized identity category (although I dispute your assertion that the simple creation of a word referring to a group of people, in and of itself, makes that group an identity category), my point is that this identity would be comprehended in terms of gender not sexual orientation.

It is highly likely that if pegging (as defined by Dan Savage) had been a popular activity in ancient Rome, it would have been seen as lower than any type of same-sex relations.

Anyway, how our debate on this question resolves is essentially irrelevant to this thread. My sole point here was that GMs should not accept our society's identity categories for their campaign worlds but should, instead, delete some and add others.

 

[barsoomcore]

I am somewhat concerned by the apparrent obsession over lesbian vampire sorceresses evident in this thread. I find the concept of a lesbian vampire sorceress to be quite terrifying. The lesbians that I know tend to be unique individuals rather than sexy stereotypes, and in conversation they regularly use their impeccably sharp wit to dissuade me from my outdated and paternalistic ideas. The notion that these aquaintances in question (or any ingame analogs) might possess mastery of the arcane arts and the fearsome powers of undeath in addition to the aforementioned sharp wit is best left unconsidered.

Unless, of course, you happen to think the whole idea of lesbian vampire sorceresses is FUNNY. Of course, I happen to think sex in general is awfully amusing, and the lengths people go to and the situations they get themselves into over and around and because of it are a great source of comfort and hilarity to me.

But I certainly share your concern. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm any less frightened by the idea of the straight women I know gaining similar powers.

I will say this: the D&D rules do support an interpretation that the default society ought to be gender-equal, if only because there are NO gender differences described in the rules. The strongest woman in the world can be as strong as the strongest man in the world, and so on for all of the attributes modeled in the game.

This certainly does NOT match what I see in the world I live in, where the strongest men seem considerably stronger than the strongest women. That's not to say definitively that women CAN'T be stronger, but I definitely see that on average, men are stronger physically than women, and that can't help but have an effect on their social roles.

So for whatever reason, men and women seem to be different in terms of their relative physical strength (if by no other measure) in the D&D world than in this world, and so it's natural to assume that the gender roles are different as well.

That's for the "default" D&D setting, obviously; this says nothing about what any individual DM ought to do in their campaign. Just a note to say that the default setting is likely to have different (and perhaps more equitable) gender roles than our own world does.

 

[fusangite]

Following this model, the decline in status of women that accompanied the rise of monotheistic religions can is explained by the declining value of women's corresponding gender roles. Judeo-Christian belief put little store in thereforeto important roles such as oracles, witches, and wisewomen, and thus the status of the women fell. Likewise, polygamous (and even strict monogamous) relationships resulted in a decline in status for the mother and a corresponding rise in status for the father.

I think you're seeing causation where there is simply correlation here. Over time, most literate societies have become more monotheistic until quite recently. Over time, most literate societies have reduced women's roles in the public sphere until quite recently. But this does not mean that one is causing the other.

When one gets down into the details of comparing third and fourth century Roman society to fourth and fifth century Roman society, the idea of the pagan world as an egalitarian, woman-friendly place and the Christian world as a hostile one does not seem that apparent. One can similarly contrast 6th and 7th century Arabia to 7th and 8th century Arabia -- there, the evidence might even let you make the case that monotheism improved women's rights. Similarly, when one makes the same differential comparison between the centuries immediately preceding conversion to the centuries immediately following, the Germanic and Slavic worlds seem equally ambiguous.

What does this mean for your campaign? Well, for one, it can help explain the egelatarian attidudes that seem to pop up in most campaigns. Maybe Sasha Silversword had a hard time getting the training and equipment necessary to become a Paladin, but nobody who has seen her in action can doubt her ability or devotion to the cause. And nobody cares whether or not she's a girl, because the fact that she's a defender of the divine light is more important.

I am immediately reminded of Catalina Erauso, the 16th century muleteer and sword duelist who used to fight men for the right to sleep with their wives. In the end, she became a fencer of such renown that she received an audience with the pope who was so impressed that he granted her a special dispensation to live as a man for the rest of her life.

Even when one looks at matricentric societies where women hold the majority of property and political rights, one sees that men often still dominate the mythic and public spheres so, in a sense, I think that even in non-patriarchal societies, female heroes are going to be more inherently exceptional. (Which is fine with me because D&D is all about exceptional people.)

I'm also appreciative of the examples you cite from the Near East in terms of other social models. I would also recommend people interested in that sort of thing look at Iroquoian societies like the Cherokees or Mohawks.

 

[Dr Simon]

I will say this: the D&D rules do support an interpretation that the default society ought to be gender-equal, if only because there are NO gender differences described in the rules. The strongest woman in the world can be as strong as the strongest man in the world, and so on for all of the attributes modeled in the game.

Under RuneQuest rules, humans (and many other creatures) do have seperate stat rolls for male and female, although the rules also suggest that female adventurers are cut from tougher cloth than their non-adventuring sisters and therefore to use the same stats rolls for men and women (seems fair enough).

If you have the 1st Ed. handbook, Gygax states in his introduction that "you will not find artificial rules for different Strength scores for men and women" (possibly with a "herein" thrown in there too. However... go to the Strength table and you will find that 16 is the maximum strength for a human female.
Hmm...

However, in general I agree (how many people bothered with that part of the rules anyhow?). 3rd Ed. is more egalitarian (to the point of PC-gone-mad) with its alternating male and female pronouns for every other paragraph. Of the iconics, though, I think Alhandra the Paladin is the only one who is outside of expected gender norms (the other iconic wimminz being the Kung-Fu babe, the Wizardess, the Nature-Loving Hippy Chick and the Half-Pint Lara Croft).

 

[The Horror]

The women in my games are most of the time weak and helpless. They are most of the time good however, with evil women merely manipulating the men in power towards their innevitable doom. Every now and again there will be a stronger woman, but even then she will still be kind, loving and gentle deep down.

The only game in which this is an exception is Shadowrun. When I run Shadowrun women tend to be sadistic, cold, calculating and often completely rigged combat wise.


The Horror

 

[Caius]

I've got two campaigns, one the women generally are more in charge it's almost like a drow culture or perhaps it's just because I run extremely overpowering and dominate*not like that * women and it's more than likely it's because that campaign is centered around a family of half-elves were the females tend to be more driven to accomplish things.

in the other campaign it's almost hard to say. I'd agree they are equal in all ways except I play the only female character in that group and aside from the overpowering aspect she's a cleric of hanali with a cha of 25 so that really comes into play. and the only real female npc's we've come into were standard towns women and a cleric that was seduced by our rogue but that's not out of the norm I'd think. We've been to busy fighting fiends to worry about the role of women well except the person who hired us for this job is a female arch-mage and we are in rashamon(sp)

I'm going to stop now, lol

 

[RodneyThompson]

I actually tend to model the women in my campaign settings on those described in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which is to say they all put a lot of ranks in Knowledge (everything).

....

I kid. WoT joke.

It's mostly gender equality for me, though not always obvious on the surface. If the men dominate the government, the women have their own spy network. If the women control all the commerce via a massive merchant system, the men control the militaries. And so on, and so forth. Most of the time, though, I just don't really think about it.